The outcome of the US presidential election yesterday lay in the hands of seven judges in the Florida supreme court, who were asked to make a final decision on whether thousands of disputed ballots should be recounted by hand.

With the controversial punchcard ballots under guard in a nearby room, and with Al Gore and George W Bush watching on television from Washington and Texas respectively, the judges wondered aloud whether they had any right to intervene in the most hotly disputed US election of the century.

The court adjourned last night to consider their ruling, which could come at any time today.

A victory for the vice-president, paving the way for a recount of up to 14,700 contested votes, would throw the US political scene into turmoil and take the constitution into uncharted waters. It could lead to the overturning of Mr Bush's 537-vote victory margin in Florida, and would almost certainly be challenged by Republican legislators in Florida and the US Congress.

A decision in favour of Mr Bush, ruling out a recount, would be a crippling blow to Mr Gore's hopes of winning the presidency.

His only chance of fighting on would be two separate private cases under way yesterday in the Tallahassee courts, where Democrats are calling for up to 25,000 votes to be invalidated because Republican party workers were allowed to fill in missing information on absentee ballot application forms before the election.

Rulings in both those lawsuits are also expected today. However, if the judge in either case makes the unexpected decision to disenfranchise thousands of voters because of what the Republicans portrayed as a "hyper-technicality", it would be immediately appealed to the Florida supreme court.

The judge in one of the cases, Nikki Clark, made plain her reluctance to follow that route yesterday, asking Democratic lawyers: "Why should I not find there was substantial compliance by the voters and accept their vote?"

If the Florida supreme court rules against Mr Gore on his call for a recount, however, many Democrats are likely to call for him not to pursue the absentee ballots cases. "This is coming to an end," said Democratic senator Dick Durbin. He said a Bush presidency "looks more and more" likely.

The judges at the state's highest court yesterday closely questioned both sides over the constitutionality and legality of a recount.

The Florida bench is made up of six Democrats and one independent. But, worryingly for Mr Gore, they showed they were keenly aware of the scrutiny of the US supreme court, which on Monday asked them to justify their intervention in the election, a tacit warning for the Florida court not to overreach its powers.

In a significant exchange, the Florida chief justice Charles Wells suggested to Mr Gore's lawyer, David Boies, that the state legislature had "plenary power" over the conduct of elections, "and that power cannot be eroded even by the state constitution".

However, another judge, Barbara Pariente, argued that a lower Florida court may have misinterpreted the law when it dismissed Mr Gore's challenge to the election result. Sanders Sauls had ruled that the vice-president had failed to prove there was a "reasonable probability" that the election result would be changed if the disputed ballots were counted.

Justice Pariente pointed out that the relevant statute only required that the ballots "cast doubt" on the outcome.

After yesterday's hearings, Mr Boies said that the Gore camp would accept the ruling of the court as the "final arbiter".

He added that if it ruled in Mr Gore's favour, the disputed ballots could be counted by Tuesday, the legal deadline for Florida to decide which way it will vote in the electoral college that will formally elect the president six days later.